Brightness can really fool people who should not be offering reviewish type comments.They get blinded by the light and it becomes the end all. the brighter the better, nothing else counts, and besides they see no degradation of anything elso.
This gets me back once again, publish a high on off, make the screen huge. and make it a high gain screen so you will have enough light from these peanut whistle projectors and most people will be in bliss. They are clueless. Screen material is a very very very important determinative and one must be willing to give up brightness to gain other things brightness freaks have no clue about.
I changed from a Studeotec1.3 gain to a 1.0 gain. My picture got dimmer, noticeably so in 3D, but in 2D the picture really improved. The screen material disappeared and the screem became a window without glass on which to view the scene. verdict to me, Studeotec 130 sucks if you can make your theater a black pit and live with a screen size that will not gain you any fame here like a 3 meter or 4 meter wide screen will.

I really want to see a Studiotek 1.0 gain screen. I'm in the process of buying a house, well looking. The money I saved will go toward the room more likely than toward a projector and screen. But I have had many neutral gain screens like the carada and SI Gamma 4k screen but I still preferred the HP screen. I just don't want to spend the money to compare the two.

I had the 1st BD screen in the UK nothing else about at the time i got it - i use it in daylight mainly in the summer and if i was buying today DNP would also be my choice.
Shock Horror if i was buying a Projector today a VW-1000 would not be my 1st choice...

I really want to see a Studiotek 1.0 gain screen. I'm in the process of buying a house, well looking. The money I saved will go toward the room more likely than toward a projector and screen. But I have had many neutral gain screens like the carada and SI Gamma 4k screen but I still preferred the HP screen. I just don't want to spend the money to compare the two.[/quote

I have said this before, brightness tends to trump nuances or increments in other areas of PQ. I come from FP CRT days and simply am not wowed by super bright pictures. I always can see the material in a high gain screen and miss the realism that my Stewart Snomatt presents. But forb most. brightness will trump just like one will normally much prefer the louder speaker in a speaker a/b. I can't educate the world here, most are not that sophisticated or even if they are and had the opportunity to compare would still prefer the extra brightness.

I really want to see a Studiotek 1.0 gain screen. I'm in the process of buying a house, well looking. The money I saved will go toward the room more likely than toward a projector and screen. But I have had many neutral gain screens like the carada and SI Gamma 4k screen but I still preferred the HP screen. I just don't want to spend the money to compare the two.[/quote
I have said this before, brightness tends to trump nuances or increments in other areas of PQ. I.i come from FP CRT days and simply am not wowed by super bright pictures. I always can see the material in a high gain screen and miss the realism that my Stewart Snomatt presents. But forb most. brightness will trump just like one will normally much prefer the louder speaker in a speaker a/b. I can't educate the world here, most are not that sophisticated or even if they are and had the opportunity to compare would still prfer the extra brightness.

I know you know what you are talking about, but I would really have to see it to believe it. I just think I would like a picture that is 140in at 15ftL with my jvc with the iris completely closed compared to a 110in Stewart screen with the iris at mid point. I really would have to see the Snomatt for me to jump ship.

A 110" is such a cute little screen.
every thread somehow turns into an HP bashing fest. I say let people enjoy what they like without constantly beating up on one of the most popular screens on the forum. Not everyone can afford a 25K projector + a very expensive screen.
With my newly blacked out ceiling, the 142" HP looks fantastic @ -11 on the 'old' RS55.

No kidding. If I didn't know the poster was actually a very good guy, a few comments back sounded a bit condescending and snobbish toward us Joe Six Packs......errrrrrr....... fans of the HP.

No kidding. If I didn't know the poster was actually a very good guy, a few comments back sounded a bit condescending and snobbish toward us Joe Six Packs......errrrrrr....... fans of the HP.

I think the HP/HCHP screens are indispensable for people who can't build a bat cave, b/c it really helps preserve the projector's contrast that might otherwise be muddied up by light-colored walls/ceilings. In fact, I would go so far as to say that home theater projection is impossible in non-bat-cave scenarios (light walls/ceilings) without HP/HCHP screens. The contrast of matte screens (non-directional) is unacceptable due to the amount of light they scattered. In fact, HP/HCHP screens should allow for wider adoption of projectors in smaller homes (city living). So I'd say a proponent of projection technology in general shouldn't bash the HP material... I think it's amazing they made a high gain screen with so little texture (though I can't say that about the HCHP... *sigh*).

I know you know what you are talking about, but I would really have to see it to believe it. I just think I would like a picture that is 140in at 15ftL with my jvc with the iris completely closed compared to a 110in Stewart screen with the iris at mid point. I really would have to see the Snomatt for me to jump ship.

you are quite welcome to come to MD with your projector and try it out. We have a large home and frequently have HT guests. being retired, I can pick up and take you back to BWI, an airport close to me and a SWA hub. Cheap airfares.

There are choices besides the HP which can deal with room reflectivity and give one improved ANSI. A grey screen with a modest amount of total gain provided you can live with a throw of at least 1.6.

And I can tell you the many HP owners have seen the improvement a black pit rooms makes to a HP screen system.

no matter what screen you have, everyone who possibly can should make the room modifcations to black pit the near surfaces to their screens.

Maybe my friend Zombie can jump in here. Man have I beat up on him to do this.

And I am not a basher, i am a basher of people who thing the HP is the perfect material and our blissfully unaware of what they are giving up. Its fine to give it up for increased brightness and to help compensate for lesss than an ideal room but I would think if ultimate brightness is not the issue, there are better choices. My invitation is open to all of course.

There are choices besides the HP which can deal with room reflectivity and give one improved ANSI. A grey screen with a modest amount of total gain provided you can live with a throw of at least 1.6.
And I can tell you the many HP owners have seen the improvement a black pit rooms makes to a HP screen system.
no matter what screen you have, everyone who possibly can should make the room modifcations to black pit the near surfaces to their screens.

Oh I would never argue with your last point. Even with the HCHP screen I can see the ceiling & floor light up near the screen. It would absolutely benefit from black light-absorbing material probably at least 4ft out from the screen, if not more.

It's just a matter of the compromises you're willing to make. In this case, I guess I'm willing to put up with whatever downsides the HP screens have so I don't have to have a bat-cave (impractical for city condo living, or if you're moving around a lot). I do appreciate you informing us that there are downsides... that's important to know. For now, I'll remain blissfully unaware visually at least, and just keep your advice in the back of my head for the future

As for your first point, I'm not so sure. A grey screen that still has the same viewing cone as a whiter screen will just have a dimmer image. Dimmer image means less light scattered, yes, but for the same intensity of an on-screen image, I would expect the grey & white screen to scatter the same amount of light (they grey screen of course needing a higher signal from the projector). That is, for the same image having the same intensity on-screen, a grey & a white screen with the same viewing angle performance will show similar, if not exactly the same, contrast. Is that not correct?

If I understand correctly, the only good measure of how much a screen will scatter is viewing cone. The smaller the viewing cone, the less light it'll scatter to nearby ceilings/walls.

And I can tell you the many HP owners have seen the improvement a black pit rooms makes to a HP screen system.

no matter what screen you have, everyone who possibly can should make the room modifcations to black pit the near surfaces to their screens.

Maybe my friend Zombie can jump in here. Man have I beat up on him to do this.

I wasn't resisting, I just wanted to wait until I found a black tile I liked. It's a huge difference and the screen / room look noticeably better than it did before. You know my setup, the big 142" is pretty close to the ceiling so the lack of reflection now makes the overall contrast look amazing.

I just got the prostar flocking to finish the grid. There is surprisingly little light being broadcast on the close wall to the left of the screen. There used to be a ton of light, now I know it was mostly coming from the ceiling, not the screen.

The floor is next, I'm building a platform and covering it with either a black material or the telescope flocking material.

I think the HP/HCHP screens are indispensable for people who can't build a bat cave, b/c it really helps preserve the projector's contrast that might otherwise be muddied up by light-colored walls/ceilings. In fact, I would go so far as to say that home theater projection is impossible in non-bat-cave scenarios (light walls/ceilings) without HP/HCHP screens. The contrast of matte screens (non-directional) is unacceptable due to the amount of light they scattered. In fact, HP/HCHP screens should allow for wider adoption of projectors in smaller homes (city living). So I'd say a proponent of projection technology in general shouldn't bash the HP material... I think it's amazing they made a high gain screen with so little texture (though I can't say that about the HCHP... *sigh*).

You should read darin's article on contrast in Secrets of home theater about 6 years back. Its on line, just google it.

Basically the screen will absorb some of the light because it is gray and it will like a restricted viewing cone will send less light to the walls. Also any light reflected back will be absrbed by the same negative gain factor, ditto for multiple reflections, call them secondary and tertiary. So you get an impovement in ANSI (not in on off) just like the effects of sending more of the light to the center. Anyway, read the article and post your thoughts.

Basically I was arguing that when you make a statement like: "Basically the screen will absorb some of the light because it is gray and it will like a restricted viewing cone will send less light to the walls." ... that makes me wonder: does that take into account the fact that to get the same intensity for a bright scene between a grey & white screen, you'd have to lower the brightness of the projector with the white screen, which'd also mean that less light is sent to the walls. I guess really what I'd like to do is compare the ANSI (-ish) contrast of my HW50 with the HCHP screen & then with a HP screen with the iris closed down to match the white level I had on the HCHP screen when making the measurement.

Or same experiment with a grey & a white screen (not necessarily HP).

But regardless of increasing the light output of the projector to match the white between a grey & a white screen (i.e. same amount of light scattered to walls/ceilings), I do understand that the reflected light will be less pronounced on the grey screen. I just feel that a narrower viewing cone may have an even bigger effect, mainly by scattering much less light to begin with. And then a grey screen with a narrow viewing cone would be even better (or the 'holy grail', in my book).

Zombie. A saw your post stating that a 110' d 1.78 screen is such a cute little screen. I agree whole heartedly but I think all those little projectors you are reviewing, the JVCs, the Sony 50, the Epson 5020 and the BenQ, are even cuter nice little projectors.. Really cute. .

Zombie. A saw your post stating that a 110' d 1.78 screen is such a cute little screen. I agree whole heartedly but I think all those little projectors you are reviewing, the JVCs, the Sony 50, the Epson 5020 and the BenQ, are even cuter nice little projectors.. Really cute. .

Thanks Jason and Mark, you two know, how to get people's own joy at the very top

Personally I just bought a "larger" cinemascope AT screen (2.40:1) - it is as a "sweet little" 110 "wide one! But okay, it's was also just a MSSRP to about 12.500, - U.S. dollars in this country:eek:.
Thanks guys, now I feel only slightly more stupid ..........

Nonsense aside, it could not actually be greater in my room, because I only have approx. 1/2 "(1.2 cm) to spare on each side of the wall ( room about 3m wide )

On top off that, here after a month is the one sidemask motor gone dead , so now I probely have to disassemble it again, and it's not exactly easy in a room, where you do not have any space at all left over - dung sh.. and happy new year to me !

And yes, I have a nice cute little projector too .............. for now...., but I think I can smell change in the air and I have to see that I come up in gear (level), so I must / can help, to play with the big boys - I do well, in fact, actually NOT need my house, my car or food for the kids

DJ. Jason and I are just spoofing with each other.
I really can't have a bigger screen in my room, if I could I would.
Fortunately, I can have a better projector than the ones in Jason's thread. Man. Jason would toss all those out if he had a Sony 1000ES lighting up that HP mirror.

I know, and find it very entertaining

Mark

BTW.

I you move the convergence shift on your 1000ES say e.g. red shift to: - 10 V(ertical) , is it then moved a whole pixel ? ( and there by NOT lose resolution )

Z10K : it is looking very good with the black celling and tile´s - great job